DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0198192 (cited by applicant) and Ruaro et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0096515.
Regarding Claim 1, Wu et al. teaches an antenna assembly (Figs. 1-8), comprising:
an antenna housing (11 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020) having a sidewall (113 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020), an exterior surface of the sidewall at least partially enclosed by a metal frame (12 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020);
an antenna positioned along an interior surface of the sidewall (AL1 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020), the antenna comprising:
one or more antenna elements (RP2 Fig. 6 Par. 0021) operable to communicate over one or more frequency bands (Par. 0023); and
a coupling element (RP3 Fig. 6 Par. 0021) connected to at least one antenna element of the one or more antenna elements (Fig. 6 Par. 0021),
wherein the coupling element is coupled to the metal frame through the sidewall of the antenna housing (Fig. 6 Par. 0021).
Wu et al. is silent on the coupling element is capacitively coupled to the metal frame.
However, Ruaro et al. teaches capacitive coupling (Par. 0062, 0065, 0080, 0090).
In this particular case, coupling antenna elements through capacitive coupling is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Ruaro et al. to connect them to operate together at radio frequencies without direct contact.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to couple the coupling element of Wu et al. to the metal frame through capacitive coupling based on the teachings of Ruaro et al. as a result effect in order to connect them to operate together at radio frequencies without direct contact.
Regarding Claim 2, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the metal frame extends over a first portion of the sidewall, the first portion overlapping the coupling element along the sidewall (Figs. 5, 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein a distance between the coupling element and the metal frame through the sidewall is less than about 2 millimeters (mm) (distance implied from Par. 0032).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the one or more antenna elements comprises: a first antenna element operable over one or more long term evolution (LTE) frequency bands (Par. 0023).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the first antenna element is operable over one or more long term evolution (LTE) frequency bands and one or more global positioning system (GPS) frequency bands (Par. 0023).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the one or more antenna elements further comprises: a second antenna element (AL2 Fig. 8 Par. 0019) operable to communicate via an 802.15 communication protocol (Bluetooth Par. 0028).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the one or more antenna elements further comprises: a third antenna element (RPS Fig. 7 Par. 0024) operable to communicate over one or more frequency bands (Par. 0024).
Wu et al. is silent on near field communication (NFC) frequency bands.
However, Ruaro et al. teaches operation in near field communication (NFC) frequency bands (near field communications (NFC), operating at 13.56 MHz Par. 0035, 0039, 0040).
In this particular case, configuring an antenna element to operate in near field communication (NFC) frequency bands is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Ruaro et al. to provide communications in short range frequency bands such as 13.56 MHz.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the third antenna element of Wu et al. to operate in near field communication (NFC) frequency bands based on the teachings of Ruaro et al. as a result effect in order to provide wireless communications in short range frequency bands such as 13.56 MHz.
Regarding Claim 8, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the antenna further comprises a carrier (13, 15 Figs. 1-6, 8 Par. 0020, 0025), the one or more antenna elements positioned along a surface of the carrier (Figs. 1-6, 8), wherein the third antenna element is positioned on a portion of the carrier (Figs. 1-6, 8) comprising an electromagnetic interference (EMI) suppressing material (AAR1, AAR2 Par. 0032).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu et al. as modified teaches the antenna assembly of claim 8 as shown in the rejection above.
Wu et al. is silent on wherein the EMI suppressing material comprises ferrite.
However, Ruaro et al. teaches wherein the EMI suppressing material comprises ferrite (ferrite layer Par. 0066).
In this particular case, ferrite is a common and well known material in the antenna art as evident by Ruaro et al. to provide shielding.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the EMI suppressing material of Wu et al. to comprise ferrite based on the teachings of Ruaro et al. as a result effect in order to provide shielding.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu et al. teaches an antenna (Figs. 1-8) positioned at least partially within an antenna housing (11 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020), the antenna comprising:
a carrier (13, 15 Figs. 1-6, 8 Par. 0020, 0025);
a first antenna element positioned on a first surface of the carrier (RP2 Fig. 6 Par. 0021); and
a coupling element positioned on the first surface of the carrier (RP3 Fig. 6 Par. 0021), the coupling element connected to the first antenna element (Fig. 6 Par. 0021),
wherein the coupling element is coupled to a metal frame (12 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020) positioned outside the antenna housing, the metal frame electrically isolated from the antenna (“the first insulation cover 13 isolates the first loop antenna AL1 from the first metallic curved piece 12” Par. 0020).
Wu et al. is silent on the coupling element is capacitively coupled to a metal frame.
However, Ruaro et al. teaches capacitive coupling (Par. 0062, 0065, 0080, 0090).
In this particular case, coupling antenna elements through capacitive coupling is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Ruaro et al. to connect them to operate together at radio frequencies without direct contact.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to couple the coupling element of Wu et al. to the metal frame through capacitive coupling based on the teachings of Ruaro et al. as a result effect in order to connect them to operate together at radio frequencies without direct contact.
Regarding Claim 11, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the carrier comprises: a curved portion (Figs. 1-6); a first leg portion extending from the curved portion in a first direction (Figs. 1-6); and a second leg portion extending from the curved portion in a second direction generally perpendicular to the first direction (Figs. 1-6), wherein a majority portion of the first antenna element is positioned on the curved portion of the carrier (Figs. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 12, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the coupling element extends along the first leg portion, the curved portion, and the second leg portion of the carrier (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the antenna further comprises: a second antenna element positioned on the first leg portion of the carrier (RP4 Fig. 8 Par. 0026); and a third antenna element positioned on the second leg portion of the carrier (RP5 Fig. 8 Par. 0026).
Regarding Claim 14, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the second antenna element is operable to communicate via an 802.15 communication protocol (Bluetooth Par. 0028) and the third antenna element is operable to communicate over one or more frequency bands (Par. 0028).
Wu et al. is silent on near field communication (NFC) frequency bands.
However, Ruaro et al. teaches operation in near field communication (NFC) frequency bands (near field communications (NFC), operating at 13.56 MHz Par. 0035, 0039, 0040).
In this particular case, configuring an antenna element to operate in near field communication (NFC) frequency bands is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Ruaro et al. to provide communications in short range frequency bands such as 13.56 MHz.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the third antenna element of Wu et al. to operate in near field communication (NFC) frequency bands based on the teachings of Ruaro et al. as a result effect in order to provide wireless communications in short range frequency bands such as 13.56 MHz.
Regarding Claim 15, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the first antenna element is operable over one or more long term evolution (LTE) frequency bands (Par. 0023) and one or more global positioning system (GPS) frequency bands (Par. 0023).
Regarding Claim 16, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein a distance between the coupling element and the metal frame is less than about 2 millimeters (mm) (distance implied from Par. 0032).
Regarding Claim 17, Wu et al. teaches an electronic device (Figs. 1-8), comprising:
a metal frame (12 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020);
an antenna housing (11 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020) having a sidewall (113 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020), an exterior surface of the sidewall at least partially enclosed by the metal frame (Figs. 1-5); an antenna (AL1 Figs. 1-6 Par. 0020) positioned along an interior surface of the antenna housing (Figs. 1-5), the antenna comprising:
a first antenna element (RP2 Fig. 6 Par. 0021) operable to communicate over one or more frequency bands (Par. 0023); and
a coupling element (RP3 Fig. 6 Par. 0021) connected to the first antenna element (Fig. 6 Par. 0021),
wherein the coupling element is coupled to the metal frame through the sidewall of the antenna housing (Fig. 6 Par. 0021).
Wu et al. is silent on the coupling element is capacitively coupled to the metal frame.
However, Ruaro et al. teaches capacitive coupling (Par. 0062, 0065, 0080, 0090).
In this particular case, coupling antenna elements through capacitive coupling is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Ruaro et al. to connect them to operate together at radio frequencies without direct contact.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to couple the coupling element of Wu et al. to the metal frame through capacitive coupling based on the teachings of Ruaro et al. as a result effect in order to connect them to operate together at radio frequencies without direct contact.
Regarding Claim 18, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein the first antenna element is operable over one or more long term evolution (LTE) frequency bands (Par. 0023).
Regarding Claim 19, Wu et al. as modified teaches wherein a distance between the coupling element and the metal frame through the sidewall is less than about 2 millimeters (mm) (distance implied from Par. 0032).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0198192 (cited by applicant) and Ruaro et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0096515 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Duzdar et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0238012.
Regarding Claim 20, Wu et al. as modified teaches the electronic device of claim 17 as shown in the rejection above.
Wu et al. is silent on wherein the electronic device comprises an electronic locking device.
However, Duzdar et al. teaches wherein the electronic device comprises an electronic locking device (“Remote keyless (RK) systems are designed to allow remote operations to be performed”, “These systems, when installed to the vehicles, may allow, for example, for locking or unlocking power door locks of the vehicles, opening or closing power windows of the vehicles” Par. 0004).
In this particular case, providing the electronic device to be an electronic locking device is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Duzdar et al. in order to lock and unlock a vehicle door.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the electronic device of Wu et al. to be an electronic locking device based on the teachings of Duzdar et al. as a result effect in order to provide a wireless lock and unlock function of a vehicle door.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights